But I'm not talking about communism...communism is the total redistribution of wealth...if I have $5 then that's what you get too...

both capitalism and communism are ideals...impossible ideals...

in a pure capitalistic environment there would be no welfare, no bailouts, no unions, no representatives, no ACLU, etc...

so we flounder between capitalism and communism...in the hope, one day, we might find something that does work...that is fair and equitable..to both the investor and the person who engineers the profit...

the present system does not work...up till now it's worked well enough...but times change...

the economic climate cannot sustain the system we have...and sooner than later we're going to have to either change the system or learn the same lesson the Soviet Union did, and all great empires throughout history...

that there always comes a point when what you had no longer works as well as it did.

For all intents and purposes...the system we have now is the same as the system we had 200 years ago...and what worked then no longer works now.

However I must ask this, since it's turned political in here - Why is this thread in The Cave and not in Political Intrigue?

If the original question was a MORAL one, I'll throw this at you - still a 'null referent'. There is nothing Moral or Amoral about Money - it's what one DOES with said money that can be construed as Moral or Amoral.

The Libertarian in me has to throw this one out to the crowd as well: We live in an imaginary Democratic Republic with Imaginary Money. Why in hell are people able to purchase real goods with Imaginary Money? Since this is the case, why don't we all just imagine ourselves Bazillionaires and buy the rest of the world, not to mention paying off all that imaginary debt the hardcore liberals seem to be worried about?

While we're at it, we can imagine more oil, less pollution, whirled peas, and that any form of VD doesn't exist - then we can all screw ourselves silly while being happy about it.

The one thing a customer service specialist can never teach is 'being nice.'

This was painful for me to read. You base everything off of assumptions that no person makes free choices, that property rights do not exist, and that all people are equally deserving.

Egaladeist wrote:The structure, by necessity, requires a high volume of ' workers ' at or near the bottom of the pyramid...most of which will never be allowed to scale to the higher levels no matter how responsible or capable they are.

False. People born into lower socioeconomic classes start with a greater disadvantage, but there are no impediments beyond parents, natural ability, and personal drive. They may have to work much harder than a person born to a wealthier family, but there is no glass ceiling.

As to pyrimadal structuring, that has more to do with our level of technological advancement. Currently, many jobs that were formerly middle-class have been phased out. When robotics makes a few more leaps, almost all low income jobs will dissappear. At that point, population will either have to shrink, move to other planets or implode. I could elaborate much further, but I think the point is clear.

Egaladeist wrote:yes, the farmer deserves to reap the rewards of his labor...but...was it his labor, or the labor of migrant farm workers?.

They deserve to be paid whatever they agree to work for. The migrant worker accepts whatever wage is negotiated or else it is not worth his time and goes elsewhere. If the farmer demands wages be so low that nobody will work for him, well...he needs to raise his level of compensation or find a way for him to sow and reap everything by himself.

People earn whatever they agree to earn when they invest. If someone consistently makes poor investments with his money, well, he loses. If someone (CEO) makes poor choices with shareholder's money, well, they remove him, determine his level of compensation, and then make sure to spend more time picking a better and more qualified CEO. Let's say that the incompitent investor has majority share and cannot be fired? Well, people sell their stock and choose to spend more time contemplating their investments--particularly when someone else can exert control over them. The company would then have no capital from poor operations and would fail. The carcass would be purged from the market and resources liquidated to productive sources.

Egaladeist wrote:in a pure capitalistic environment there would be no welfare, no bailouts, no unions, no representatives, no ACLU, etc...

This makes absolutely no sense aside from perhaps government bailouts. In a system of free choice, these exist to the extent which people choose to participate. Charities will exist on basis of altruism vs. government programs that rely on cohersion. Unions will always exist where free people feel the need to have them. This may limit their employment options, but that is likely to be an issue a union would address. As to representatives and ACLU....these have nothing to do with economics and are wholly external.

Sorry Harb but I think you're confusing capitalism with libertarianism...pure capitalism has nothing to do with free will, and everything to do with survival of the fittest... it is entirely based upon a pyramid structure...

to use a simple framework:

ownerboard of directorsmanagementsupervisorsemployees

now let's assume there is one owner, 7 board members, 12 people in various management positions, 26 floor and department supervisors. and 600 employees...

there simply is no way all 600 employees or even most of them will ever advance beyond their station...why?...because the further up the ladder you go the fewer vacancies/positions there are.

This system is employed in every factory and business in virtually every part of the world...the 600 employees will never ascend to become owners, and very few will ever get promoted to higher stations...no matter how loyal or hard-working they are or how many years of service they render.

"First, basic production facilities—land and capital—are privately owned. Capital in this sense means the buildings, machines, and other equipment used to produce goods and services that are ultimately consumed. Second, economic activity is organized and coordinated through the interaction of buyers and sellers (or producers) in markets. Third, owners of land and capital as well as the workers they employ are free to pursue their own self-interests in seeking maximum gain from the use of their resources and labor in production. Consumers are free to spend their incomes in ways that they believe will yield the greatest satisfaction. This principle, called consumer sovereignty, reflects the idea that under capitalism producers will be forced by competition to use their resources in ways that will best satisfy the wants of consumers. Self-interest and the pursuit of gain lead them to do this. Fourth, under this system a minimum of government supervision is required; if competition is present, economic activity will be self-regulating. Government will be necessary only to protect society from foreign attack, uphold the rights of private property, and guarantee contracts. "

In any case, what you described is a beauracracy, that exists in all walks of life and in all careers. Unless you think a company is better served by having 600 CEOs for every factory worker, I don't see a problem. Likewise, who says those 600 people deserve to be a CEO? The competition to fill the higher etchlon fuels competition, which encourages excellence. If their current company proves to be too deeply steeped in nepotism/cronyism for them to advance, they take their services elsewhere.

The company that promotes those most worthy to serve the companies interest will do best, and the market will reward them--that is, unless the government gets involved and decides who earns what, controls prices, and supports industries.

Unless you think a company is better served by having 600 CEOs for every factory worker, I don't see a problem.

I'm not arguing that point though...my original argument stems from the fair and equitable distribution of wealth...that at some point after the owner and investors have been reasonably compensated for their investment and the risk of that investment that the people who worked to help provide that compensation should have a greater share of the profits.

Eg. I give you, as an investor, $5 ...and your labor returns to be back that $5 plus $25 profit..should I expect you to continue to make me profit with no further investment on my part. At what point do you say, ' I've returned your investment plus an additional profit of $x, from this point on the profit from my labor is mine ' '?

To a certain degree many companies already have a system in place whereby the employees can earn profit shares in the Company. That at a certain point they can start earning and sharing in the profits of their labor.

Egaladeist wrote:I'm not arguing that point though...my original argument stems from the fair and equitable distribution of wealth...that at some point after the owner and investors have been reasonably compensated for their investment and the risk of that investment that the people who worked to help provide that compensation should have a greater share of the profits.

You're not respecting individual property rights here. When that factory worker is hired, he/she in no ways owns any part of that company. A factory worker is no more entitled to company profits than a Nanny is entitled to dictate how your children are raised, or a maid owning a portion of your home simply by working there.

"Equal distrobution" is government sponsored plunder and theft. If an employee feels what they agreed to work for is inadequate to their job, they can:

1) Request more either individually or through social action like unions.2) Purchase stock/control3) Leave

I do see where you're going...but I think you're leaving out essential details...such as freedom is very much determined by choice...and so it is very much limited to those choices...

the three options you suggest have consequences...eg. people do not always have the option of refusing a job in preference to one they agree with...in fact, in most cases today, people are forced to take jobs they would not accept if those ' freedoms ' you suggest were really available to them.

You can never do anything you do not wish to do. Even with a gun held to your skull, you make a choice. There is NEVER a reason why someone can't refuse a job.

If you don't want to work for another to earn your money, and are incapable of being self employed, then grow your own food. Billions of people still do it. Then you can sell those and work your way up from there. Even if you don't, no matter what wage you have you can always spend less and save more until you get to a point where you can afford a better education or opportunities. Nothing has to be permanent. Who says you should/need to go straight to a 4 year college? Get an 8month professional certification for a few hundred dollars and then work up from there. I will take some time and effort, but you'll get there.

Now if you find yourself incapable or unwilling to do any of these things, then you deserve to be at the bottom rungs of society and most certainly do not deserve to be entitled to the labors of others.

Riddle me this: Why do all government welfare/social programs rely on cohersion and not voluntary participation, even when benefits are equally spread no matter what your socioeconomic level is?